Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* The material in this handout is, in part, a simplification of material from J. Dauben,
Georg Cantor; fuller details are available in that book.
1
Theorem 2 Suppose that P is a subset of R having the property that P ′′ = ∅, and that
a0
f (x) = + a1 cos x + b1 sin x + a2 cos 2x + b2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
c0
= + c1 cos x + d1 sin x + c2 cos 2x + d2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
for all values of x ∈
/ P . Then for all n, cn = an and dn = bn .
and Theorem 3 from Theorem 2:
Theorem 3 Suppose that P is a subset of R having the property that P ′′′ = ∅, and that
a0
f (x) = + a1 cos x + b1 sin x + a2 cos 2x + b2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
c0
= + c1 cos x + d1 sin x + c2 cos 2x + d2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
for all values of x ∈
/ P . Then for all n, cn = an and dn = bn .
and, more generally, Theorem n + 1 from Theorem n:
Theorem n Suppose that P is a subset of R having the property that P (n) = ∅, and that
a0
f (x) = + a1 cos x + b1 sin x + a2 cos 2x + b2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
c0
= + c1 cos x + d1 sin x + c2 cos 2x + d2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
for all values of x ∈
/ P . Then for all n, cn = an and dn = bn .
where we define P (n) by recursion on n so that P (0) = P and P (n+1) = (P (n) )′ .
Thus we now have a sequence of theorems, each of which is better than the previous
one, because the condition on P is weaker; so the set of exceptional points, on which
the trigonometric series can “go wrong”, is allowed to be larger. (The reason that the
conditions are getting weaker is that for any P , P ′ ⊇ P ′′ ⊇ P ′′′ ⊇ · · ·. If you have studied
some topology, see if you can figure out why.)
But Cantor wasn’t finished there. Can we write down a condition weaker than all the
conditions P ′ = ∅, P ′′ = ∅, P ′′′ = ∅, . . . , P (n) = ∅? Yes we can: what about
\
P (n) = ∅?
n∈N
Using this even weaker condition, Cantor was able to prove yet another theorem which,
using notation which it took Cantor some years to settle on, we shall call Theorem ω:
Theorem ω Suppose that P is a subset of R having the property that P (ω) = ∅, and that
a0
f (x) = + a1 cos x + b1 sin x + a2 cos 2x + b2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
c0
= + c1 cos x + d1 sin x + c2 cos 2x + d2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
2
for all values of x ∈
/ P . Then for all n, cn = an and dn = bn .
(ω)
T
where P = n∈N P (n) .
Now if P ′ is the first derivative of P , P ′′ the second derivative, and so on, it is surely
natural to refer to P (ω) as the ωth derivative. In grammar, the words first, second, third
and so on are called ordinal numbers; so surely the ω in the notation P (ω) is playing the
same role; it is an infinite ordinal number. Similarly, when we refer to Theorem 3, we do
not think that there are three of this theorem; we are saying that it is the third in some
sequence: so in “Theorem 3”, the label 3 is really an ordinal; so we can regard the ω in
“Theorem ω” in the same way.
Why stop there? How about the theorem concerning (P (ω) )′ ? This is derived from
Theorem ω in the same way that we derive Theorem 3 from Theorem 2 or Theorem 57
from Theorem 56, so it’s tempting to call it Theorem ω + 1:
Theorem ω + 1 Suppose that P is a subset of R having the property that P (ω+1) = ∅,
and that
a0
f (x) = + a1 cos x + b1 sin x + a2 cos 2x + b2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
c0
= + c1 cos x + d1 sin x + c2 cos 2x + d2 sin 2x + · · ·
2
for all values of x ∈
/ P . Then for all n, cn = an and dn = bn .
(ω+1)
where P = (P (ω) )′ .
In the same way, we define P (ω+2) , P (ω+3) and so on, and prove Theorem ω + 2,
Theorem ω + 3 and so on.
And then there’s a theorem which is better than all of these. If we define
\
P (ω+ω) = P (ω+n) ,
n∈N
3
1. 0,
2. successors n + 1.
Looking at the ordinals (finite and infinite), we see that these two cases do not exhaust
the possibilities. What is ω? It obviously isn’t zero. It also isn’t of the form α + 1, because
if α < ω, then α is a natural number, and then so is α + 1. So ω belongs to a third class.
So we classify the ordinals as follows:
1. 0,
2. successors α + 1,
3. everything else.
The term we use for members of the third class is limit ordinals.
6.3. Ordinal arithmetic
We’ve been deriving our notation for ordinal numbers by using arithmetical operations;
evidently it would be as well to have some idea of how these work.
The principles of ordinal arithmetic are fundamentally different from those of cardinal
arithmetic, in that they are all about arranging things in an order. Let’s start with finite
ordinals. What is addition, in this context?
Let’s consider the English king Henry VIII. Did we obtain him by taking three Henrys,
then five more, and adding them together? Not really: Henry VIII was just one man after
all. But what we can say is that he was the fifth king called Henry after Henry III. So in
ordinal arithmetic the equation
3+5=8
means: advance three steps along your list; then advance five more; that’s the same as
going straight to the eighth position. And notice again that this is all about order. And
notice also that it’s not quite instantly obvious that this operation is commutative.
Now let’s do some addition with infinite ordinals. Let’s calculate ω + 2 and 2 + ω, and
compare them. To calculate ω + 2, we first count off all the ordinal numbers below ω:
0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; 0, 1
and then count off the whole list, labelling them with the ordinal numbers in order:
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; 0, 1
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; ω, ω + 1
and what we’ve created is a copy of all the ordinals below ω +2, as we would have expected.
Now let’s do the sum the other way round. First count off two:
0, 1
then an additional ω:
0, 1; 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
4
and then assign ordinal labels to the entire list, in order:
0, 1; 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . .
This time, we’ve only used up the ordinals before ω. So rather unexpectedly, we find that
2 + ω = ω 6= ω + 2.
Well, perhaps it isn’t so surprising. After all, ordinals, by their nature, are about
order. So when we add two ordinals, we might very well expect it to matter which order
we do it in.
The account of ordinal addition given here—to obtain α + β, first count off a copy
of (the ordinals below) α, then an additional copy of (the ordinals below) β, and then see
what the result looks like—is the account best suited to forming intuitions about ordinal
addition. However, the definition given in lectures is better for proving theorems about it.
To really understand the ordinals, it helps to have both.
How about ordinal multiplication? In ordinal arithmetic, the equation
2.4 = 8
means “after you’ve counted off two for the fourth time, you’ll be at the eighth position”.
In the context of kings of England, we count off an ordered pair of Henrys four times:
Henry I Henry II Henry III Henry IV Henry V Henry VI Henry VII Henry VIII
first second first second first second first second
1st pair 2nd pair 3rd pair 4th pair
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
0, 1
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ; ω, ω + 1, ω + 2, ω + 3, . . .
and we find that we’ve used up the ordinals less than ω + ω, as expected.
5
Now we repeat for 2.ω. This time we begin with a copy of (the ordinals less than) ω:
0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
0 1 2 3 ...
0, 1; 0, 1; 0, 1; 0, 1; . . .
0 1 2 3 ...
0, 1; 0, 1; 0, 1; 0, 1; . . .
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, . . .
This time we’ve used up just the natural numbers, and we find that 2.ω = ω 6= ω.2.
Again, this method of defining ordinal multiplication is better for forming intuition,
but the recursive method used in lectures is better for proving theorems.
There is a similar picture for ordinal exponentiation, but it is not very helpful.
It might be a useful exercise to try out these intuitive ideas, to convince yourself why
the following are true:
1. If β is a limit, then so is α + β,
2. if β is a successor, then so is α + β,
3. if α or β is a limit, and α and β are not zero, then α.β is a limit,
4. if α and β are both successors, then α.β is a successor,
5. ordinal addition and multiplication are associative,
6. ordinal addition and multiplication allow cancellation on the left: that is, if α +β =
α + γ, then β = γ, and if α.β = α.γ and α 6= 0, then β = γ,
7. ordinal addition and multiplication do not allow cancellation on the right,
8. the right distributive law α(β + γ) = α.β + α.γ is true, but the left distributive law
(α + β).γ = α.γ + β.γ is not.
All of these can be more conveniently proved using the formal definitions given in
lectures.
6
The finite cardinals and ordinals are in one-to-one correspondence. Everyone who has
tried to learn a language is familiar with this, from tables like the following:
Cardinals Ordinals
and you certainly expect the rows of the two tables to line up.
But this fails dramatically when we come to the infinite cardinals and ordinals.
To see why, let’s try to see what cardinals correspond to the ordinals we’ve defined so
far.
We begin with ω. The cardinal corresponding to it is presumably the number of
ordinals less than ω, that is, the number of elements in the following sequence:
0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
`0 .`0 = `0 ,
we can see that all of the infinite ordinals we have mentioned so far correspond to the same
cardinal number.
7
So if we were to extend the tables we had earlier, we would obtain
Cardinals Ordinals
(I am not familiar with the Latin words for the infinite ordinals and cardinals.)
None of the operations of ordinal arithmetic suffices to get us an uncountable ordinal;
and indeed, the first one is named using new notation as ω1 . (And the next ordinal after
it is ω1 + 1, then comes ω1 + 2, ω1 + 3, . . . , ω1 + ω, . . . )
6.5. Identifying the ordinals as sets
It is now customary to identify the ordinal α with the set of all preceding ordinals
{β : β < α}, and we use this standard identification in this lecture course. However, if
you tried to convince your greengrocer that the natural number 0 was actually the empty
set, 1 was actually {0}, and so on, then they would think you were a bit strange, and they
would be right. In the same way, although the standard way of identifying the ordinals
as sets (which results, in particular, in ω becoming the set of natural numbers) works and
is convenient, it does not seem to me to be any more significant than that. I met the
infinite cardinals and ordinals many years before I first took a set theory course, and to me
it seems that the preceding intuitive discussion comes closer to what the ordinals “really
are”.